MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400150346 · doi:10.1007/979-8-8688-0324-6_11

Developer Handoff

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400150346 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Green, Kevin Brandon

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Thinking · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsGeorgetown Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHandoverComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developer handoff is the final step in the UX Design process. Though the developer has been involved in all aspects of the process, this is the point where the UX Designer steps aside and the developer takes over. As you have gone through this book, you have created mobiles and web pages. What we haven't stressed is it is not uncommon for the designer to prototype an interaction and then work with the developer to refine that interaction. When everyone is satisfied, the prototype of that interaction or page is then handed off for development. Rarely, if ever, is a Figma prototype handed to a developer with a cheery "Here you go."

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2030.109

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign ThinkingSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207